FAA Remote ID Requirements?

[wrench567]

Rogue? Not. The FAA is responsible for developing regulatory and operational systems in response to laws passed by an elected and representative congress. That’s what they do. They are not rogue. That’s our system of constitutional democracy.

Complete failure? Not. Much of what drone operators may be experiencing as oppressive regulatory oversight is a result of air safety methods developed in response to terrible accidents with horrific loss of life for those in aircraft *and* on the ground.

One could certainly argue that FAA has either “erred on the side of caution” or “hugely overreached” in drone safety regulation. I personally can’t imagine wanting to travel by air if the FAA was more hands-off. They recently responded to anti-regulatory interests with a more self-regulatory system for airplane manufacturers, we all saw those results. No thanks.

My sense is that drone operation ballooned so quickly that it’s been difficult for any government to respond as quickly as we would like. Maybe the FAA should have gone faster, but that’s government, it doesn’t make them rogue or a complete failure. I’m happy to see new regs this year making it easier, cheaper, and more valuable for pt. 107 pilots to keep up their certificates, and great updates for easily accessible and safe methods for flying over people and night flying. FAA is not standing still.

Integration of drones in the National Airspace System via Remote ID is a tough nut any way you try to crack it. I think FAA made some major missteps in their early notices. To their credit, they’ve largely corrected them. I don’t know what my personal financial hit will be when it comes time to purchase RID modules, it’s hard to be happy about that, but I WILL DO IT.

Safety is important, too important to be left to individuals‘ interpretations of best practices, because there are plenty of yahoos out there who don’t seem to care about anything but themselves. I don’t want my family’s and community’s safety to be dependent only on others’ good will. The track record isn’t good. The FAA’s work in air safety is important. They can’t provide a guarantee, but do improve the odds.

The FAA are trying to set safety regulations on a hobby without even doing any RISK MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT. How many manned aircraft have been downed by hobby multi rotors? How many deaths have occurred because of unmanned multi rotor aircraft? I have no problem with exclusion zones and obey them. What I don't like is government telling me how to spend my hobby dollars!!!!
Cell phones have killed more people than RC aircraft. Where is the government regulations about those tragedies?
These regulations have nothing to do about SAFETY. It's all about the money!!! They will ruin a 2 billion dollar hobby industry so they can open up airspace for the commercial drone market to rent airspace on a paying basis. Don't believe me? Google your local airports tax revenue. It will make you sick. The mismanagement and corruption is epic. Airport managers making six figures for a part time position.
Don't confuse SAFETY with POTENTIAL REVENUE. The government don't care about you. Only your wallet.

 

[DoomMeister]

Let’s stick to the topic of the thread people. The FAA’s integrity is not the subject of the thread and further posts along that line will be deleted.

 

[wrench567]

Sorry. Whole hearted apology.

 

[Vaklin]

To bump the topic...

The carrier frequency and method are not on the agenda for now. The question is what is the requested volume of information to be sent.

For example:

- drone's position (LAT, LON, ALT (Altitude is relative to the op's position with sign), heading (where the nose is pointing relative to the North +/- 180 degrees);
- operator's position (LAT, LON) as drone knows it;
- drone's acceleration (Vx, Vy, Vz (in relation with the heading));
- some kind of a tail number

All values are REAL and are got from the drone. How much it knows about itself, we'll know the same.

Share your expectations, please.

 

[dylanfm]

I haven't seen this discussed on this forum, but apparently there has been a legal challenge made against the RID rule. It seems to be specifically related to requiring RID on private property constitutes an illegal search.

This all seems interesting to me and falls in line with my general thinking about RID and drone laws in general. I don't feel that the FAA should be able to control what I do on my own property.

The info below is copied from this thread on another forum:
The Petitioners in the Brennan v. FAA Remote ID lawsuit

Posted by Brendan Schulman:

The Petitioners in the Brennan v. FAA Remote ID lawsuit have filed their final brief, and here it is. In my opinion, the argument that FAA Remote ID violates a privacy interest because low altitude airspace is actually private property (citing the Causby case) is a huge strategic blunder. If that argument is successful, it will trigger a flood of state and local regulations and prohibitions on drone use. (Because local government can regulate what is not regulated by the federal government.) Based on past experience, such regulation will be particularly problematic for recreational drone users such as the FPV community. I make no prediction as to whether the argument, or other arguments, will succeed. Oral argument is scheduled for December 15.

Box​

app.box.com

Audio of the oral arguments:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recor...A1617684DE1852587AC005EC27E/$file/21-1087.mp3

 

[dan82nd]

how do I register my Yuneec H Pro? or do I have to? does it BROADCAST FAA REMOTE ID Info? idk. any advice is appreciated.

 

[DoomMeister]

how do I register my Yuneec H Pro? or do I have to? does it BROADCAST FAA REMOTE ID Info? idk. any advice is appreciated.

If you have your 107 certification you have to register the aircraft. If you are a recreational flier you only register yourself and affix the registration number to any aircraft you fly.

For now there are NO aircraft that need to be registered for Remote ID, because there are none that meet the standards yet (the specifications for RID have not been finalized as of yet, so there are no aircraft that can meet them).

 

[BigAl07]

how do I register my Yuneec H Pro? or do I have to? does it BROADCAST FAA REMOTE ID Info? idk. any advice is appreciated.

To add just a pinch to what DM just mentioned:
To register in the US go to FAADroneZone
and create your account then register either Recreationally or Part 107 depending on how you fly.

Yes you much register in the US if:

A) Recreationally, if the aircraft is over 249gr(.55lbs). You register on the Recreational side and affix that # to the outside of the aircraft and any other UAS you fly ONLY for Recreation. If registered Recreationally you can NOT fly for anything outside of Recreational which is noted within ~44809

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title49-section44809&num=0&edition=prelim

B) If you fly for ANY purpose outside of what's listed in ~44809 (except Public Safety or a Gov entity) you'll need to Register on the Part 107 side of the portal and affix that # to the outside of this aircraft.

In the Registration Portal you may see the question:
“DOES YOUR DRONE BROADCAST FAA REMOTE ID INFORMATION?”
Click on NO because NO current aircraft meet this requirement now and if you click YES it is going to ask for the Serial # of your RID unit and since none are available it will fail in the authentication aspect.

 

[Phoenixwork78]

Do you mean RID compliance in well over 2 years from now? There is no drone presently built that will meet RID compliance until they finalize the exact specifications and publish what those specs are. Most of today’s fleet will end up requiring an add on to become compliant.

UAS Declaration of Compliance here is a list of FAA UAS Declaration of Compliance

 

[DoomMeister]

UAS Declaration of Compliance here is a list of FAA UAS Declaration of Compliance

Thanks for the update and link to the list. Amazing! Nothing from Yuneec yet.

 

[Ty Pilot]

At this point I think it is a safe bet that: Yuneec is not going to ever make the compliant list. Personally, even if they did somehow find a way to make our aircraft RID compliant, the history of updates from Yuneec is enough to cause me to pass on any further updates from them.

In my case, I will just purchase a module when they become available since I only fly VLOS. For those that maybe haven't seen the tiers of compliance I have added it below. Please note the differences in each.

 

[Vaklin]

Is there a specification for how to broadcast the required information?

Typhon H480 has all the necessary data in the gimbal to drone connector and it is reverse-engineered in about 90%.

I can share some of my work if someone will go further to do a product. For me, the RID is not a business. All, of which I have, is coded in very clean pure C.

 

[DoomMeister]

I agree @Ty Pilot. Have you by any chance found anything on the market other than the $300 unit advertised by Vertigo Drones?

 

[DoomMeister]

Is there a specification for how to broadcast the required information?

Typhon H480 has all the necessary data in the gimbal to drone connector and it is reverse-engineered in about 90%.

I can share some of my work if someone will go further to do a product. For me, the RID is not a business. All, of which I have, is coded in very clean pure C.

My son is a programmer and I will be visiting him next month. I will see if he has some time to spend on this. I'll get back with you @Vaklin.

To my knowledge there was no particular means specified. The format containing the required data was. I'll check on specifics.

 

[Ty Pilot]

I agree @Ty Pilot. Have you by any chance found anything on the market other than the $300 unit advertised by Vertigo Drones?

Not as of my last look a few weeks ago. As of now the DroneTag module is the only FAA approved module, but I feel certain, there will be others, then the price will fall.

 

[Steve Carr]

I would suggest the drone and controller information is already being broadcast and can be received by a third party. So essentially our equipment is in compliance. They just need to modify their receiver app to read the info.
I suppose the FAA will take a different position.

 

[dylanfm]

At this point I think it is a safe bet that: Yuneec is not going to ever make the compliant list. Personally, even if they did somehow find a way to make our aircraft RID compliant, the history of updates from Yuneec is enough to cause me to pass on any further updates from them.

In my case, I will just purchase a module when they become available since I only fly VLOS. For those that maybe haven't seen the tiers of compliance I have added it below. Please note the differences in each.

I think the "Drones with a RID module are limited to VLOS" has lead to some assumptions that implied drones with built in RID will be generally allowed to fly beyond VLOS. I don't think that is true. When I read through the rules when the new RID rules were announced it looked to me like the restrictions on beyond VLOS will still be in effect, meaning that without an FAA exemption (which will likely only be given to large corps) it won't be available to most of us. I could be wrong though, I might have missed something. For sure nothing in the rule summary says the status of beyond VLOS for drones with built in RID.

 

[Ty Pilot]

RID is a "first" step towards eventual BVLOS flight for unmanned UA, but it will not be the last step towards it. So essentially, you are correct that on September 16th when the final Rule becomes 100% effective, BVLOS will not allowed without a waiver but going forward, the FAA understands (or perhaps is better adapted too), the evolutionary process of integrating UAS into the NAS.

Here is an excellent (but long) interview of an FAA spokesman where he discusses RID. I have set the video to start at the point this very question is asked, but you can back it up if you want to see the whole interview.

 

[dylanfm]

RID is a "first" step towards eventual BVLOS flight for unmanned UA, but it will not be the last step towards it. So essentially, you are correct that on September 16th when the final Rule becomes 100% effective, BVLOS will not allowed without a waiver but going forward, the FAA understands (or perhaps is better adapted too), the evolutionary process of integrating UAS into the NAS.

Here is an excellent (but long) interview of an FAA spokesman where he discusses RID. I have set the video to start at the point this very question is asked, but you can back it up if you want to see the whole interview.

Thanks for the link. That is cool to see that they are saying that they are working towards making BVLOS more widely available I guess. For me personally I don't have a lot of faith in the FAA's logic or good intentions towards hobbyist drone operators so I will believe that when I see it put into a final rule.

Also, I have always felt that the FAA's continuous clamping down on hobbyist drones is driven largely by wanting to expand BVLOS for commercial purposes. I am still very bitter that in the near future I will no longer be able to cheaply 3d print and/laser cut a drone frame, scrounge up/repurpose some electronics and fly it over my own property at low altitude but theoretically Amazon could buzz my house all day long. So I have mixed feelings about expanding BVLOS anyway.

 

[Ty Pilot]

I hear what you are saying but I am of the mind that the early days of the "drone" - when drone pilots could take off from anywhere at any time, for the first time in model aviation history - those were the days when no longer did a UA pilot need to be part of a local club, nor an AMA member. They were no longer bound by rules or procedures that had previously been in place and provided safe conflict-free operations across the country for over 70 years.

The FAA had up until that time; left ALL of the regulation of RC/UAs to the AMA and had no intention of changing things. I call the period between the first DJI Phantom and some point before the Phantom 3's release - "The Wild Days". The period stretching from around 2013 to 2015. Without ANY regulation on the books for "drones", a lot of irresponsible drone pilots did unthinkable and stupid things with their drones. It was clearly demonstrated that drone pilots without training or experience, given the opportunity and equipment, would fly well beyond their own capabilities. Need Proof? Check the 'crash and flyaway' section on Mavic Pilots.

The media, always on the lookout for a headline saw their opportunity. When drones starting showing up in places where they never should have been in the first place - "drone" became synonymous with an object of ill intent. That sticks with us today and forever. Once we got the attention of the federal regulators; the writing was on the wall.

Amazon has all but admitted that their drone delivery was a massive drain on the company. Mass delivery by drone is never going to be a thing. But I do believe that the FAA understands that the sky is no longer the domain solely of manned aviation. With that, and the history of drones in mind - RID sort of seems inevitable.

I do get why some pilots like to think they're "exploring" or "on a mission" when flying BVLOS but me personally, I'm fine with VLOS.